Talk:Vancouver/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Vancouver in WP:FAR

I have nominated Vancouver for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 10:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Since apparently no one responded to this (and I am as much to blame as anyone), the article has now been listed as a Featured Article Removal Candidate. We need some editors to step up to the plate and address the deficiencies right away or Vancouver will be delisted as an FA. Those who are interested in working on keeping FA status, please indicate your willingness below. You may also wish to comment here. Sunray (talk) 08:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I will work on keeping FA status

• Sunray (talk) 08:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I am going away for a few weeks & will have little time to work on this. Most of the complaints seem to be about the demographic section. That section is a problem in just about every city article. Every ethnicity & nationality in the world could end up in such a section. I think we should restrict it to identifiable neighborhoods - Commercial Drive, ChinaTown, etc. The request for citation for bilingual street signs seems unnecessary - but a photo of one or two should satisfy whoever is so concerned about that. The paragraph in the lede about rankings is long and, frankly, boring - it needs to be cut to a bare minimum. The Olympics can go with industry paragraph. --JimWae (talk) 17:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Demographics should also not dwell mostly on ethnic/visible minority issues; age/income/gender strata and other basic-demographics material should have equal coverage to the usual Canadian obsession with multiculturalism.Skookum1 (talk) 12:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I've trimmed the quality of living stuff in the lead a bit and eliminated the blurb on the Olympics - it is covered in the sports section. Sunray (talk) 21:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[undent[One thing in need of doing for some time now is migrating most of the content in the History section to History of Vancouver; I don't have the time or energy, and admit to expanding this section myself; the same problem I think exists with the BC article vs History of British Columbia.Skookum1 (talk) 02:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• The olympics are a major event for gays, like them or not. several cities that previously were sites stll mention them in their lede. Its importance to the city will only grow as we get closer to them. They are certainly more important than 10th cleanest city according to some magazine. The last paragraph still is terribly boring. Salt Lake City was transformedby the Olympics - and Vancouver is also changing quickly now - more light rail, new convention center,... --JimWae (talk) 04:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but this article should not be a promotional brochure for the Olympics, just as it should not also be a promotional brochure for the city. Expo 86 also changed the city, or rather government infrastructure improvements associated with the political agenda behind the fair changed the city; so did, for that matter, the Diamond Jubilee (1960-61) and the British Empire Games (1954) and also Centennial-era improvements (1966-67 and 1971), though all that's somewhat obscured behind the general infrastructure expansion of the whole WAC Bennett era but includes things like the Granville Street Bridge, the 401, the Georgia Viaduct(s) etc. Crediting the Olympics with being the instigation of LRT and the convention centre is definitely part of the Olympics press kit, and while LRT has had its own agenda since Expo 86, it's quite likely the planning for the convention centre wouldn't have been fast-tracked without the Olympics agenda....nor its huge cost overruns tolerated as they have been (considering the same government that pushed the convention centre has made so much political hay off the Fast Ferries cost oeverruns, which were less than half that of the convention centre's). The concentration of spending in Vancouver because of the Olympics is also a major political issue outside of Vancouver by other parts of the province, particularly the Interior; that's not so much relevant to this article but all this is meant as a reminder that one-sided presentation of the Olympics as a windfall to the city is a loaded concept and definitely part of a political package; i.e. the infrastructure improvmeents would (eventually) have been built anyway, if not under Olympics justification then under some other justification (particularly highways improvements). That the city's charter was changed by the legislature to enable completion of the Athletes Village (because of its cost overruns and shaky financing) certainly has helped changed southeast False Creek; but building of facilities does not itself change a city; the Canada Games Pool didn't transform New Westminster, Empire Stadium didnt' transform Vancouver, so rebuilt sports facilities in QE Park and a re-fit for the Stadium are largely superfluous and transitory. That the RAV line shattered the traditional economy/community on Cambie Street definitely is part of teh story, though, likewise the rebuild of Granville Mall - even the selection or the RAV route (now the Canada Line) over the long-needed expansion into Coquitlam is also part of the political legacy of the Olympics....what I'm getting at is presenting Olympics improvements without their political context is NPOV-to-the-point-of-POV....Skookum1 (talk) 12:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

A rail line from the airport to downtown is essential for a modern city. The Canada Line has been in the works since 1984 or earlier. The Olympics are a major international event. The present last paragraph of the article, even though all factual, would appear to be redundant boosterism. It seems to be rankings for the same thing by different magazines, and the entire paragraph needs to be condensed to 1 or 2 sentences. NYC article lede mentions both World's Fairs it hosted. Wikipedia has the advantage of being able to stay current, and the Olympics will only grow in importance in time. Besides being in lede, there probably should even be an entire section on it. It would have to be morebalanced than the paragraph above, though ;) --JimWae (talk) 17:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm neutral as to whether we keep the reference to the olympics in the lead. It is pretty significant and, though I removed it, I could see putting it back. It is just that I hate those one line paragraphs (and so, I believe do FA reviewers). I will have another go at that last paragraph in the lead to try to make it more readable and if I can find an easy transition to bring in mention of the Olympics, will do so. Sunray (talk) 17:31, 5 switholania 2009 (UTC)

I've modified the last paragraph. Took out the bit about being the 10th cleanest city. Added a transitional sentence about Vancouver and international events, which was a good lead-in to the Olympics, so I restored that sentence. How does that work? Sunray (talk) 22:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

As far as those international events go, I found some stuff on UN Conference on Human Settlements and the associated anti-event, Habitat Forum; the year was 1976 and this is a Vancouver Sun article from its 30th anniversary; there's various stuff on this google and one...the UN's own site on it is here but it includes info on Habitat II and Habitat III (1996 and 2006). There was also the World Bank Conference in the early '90s, which was a very big to-do, and also if it's not mentioned already the Clinton-Yeltsin Summit .Skookum1 (talk) 23:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

One thing I think should be eliminated or fixed is the claim that Vancouver has been ranked as one of the most livable cities in the world. The article this claim is based on is an article about which cities are most livable for British expatriates, making it someone biased toward that specific viewpoint. Moreover, the article is 7 years old now and makes reference to Belgrade, Yugoslavia, as if Yugoslavia still existed. 72.227.132.241 (talk) 00:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)KitKat

One of the first Google searches provides a Globe and Mail article from April 2009 that cites Economist Magazine, "Vancouver has been selected as the world's most “livable city” and Toronto the fifth most livable in a survey of 132 cities by the Economist magazine." So unless you have other evidence that backs up your very biased, opinionated, and likely untrue comments, please don't make erroneous claims. Mkdw^talk 00:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

metro pop. error

I just found out that this article's metro pop. for vancouver is wrong because someone just added GVRD and FVRD this is not sourced and plus WP:CANSTYLE states for populations of cities and metro areas we should use sats can's numbers not other ones. RebaFan1996 (talk) 20:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I raised this before, with no resolution - see this section above.Skookum1 (talk) 21:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it is unsourced (or rather, that the source does not give this figure). It is thus OR. I've removed it. Sunray (talk) 17:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

street railway

I lengthened this a bit for accuracy/completness though more is needed, e.g. the "Loop" line via 16th, teh Kitsilano lines etc:

Vancouver's streetcar system began on 28 June 1890 and ran from the (first) Granville Street Bridge to Westminster Avenue (now [[Main Street (Vancouver)|Main Street] and [[Kingsway (Vancouver)|Kingsway]). Less than a year later, the Westminster and Vancouver Tramway Company began operating Canada's first interurban line between the two cities and beyond to Chilliwack, with another line, the Lulu Island Railroad, from the Granville Street Bridge to Steveston via Kerrisdale, which encouraged residential neighbourhoods outside the central core to develop.

But wanting to note that the Vancouver-New West line, or one of them if not the first (?) ran via "Park Drive" (now Commercial Drive): think it may have been the original, because of the lesser grade vs. the Main Street hill; but it may have been the Burnaby Lake Line rather than the Central Park Line, will investigate that; also Westminster Avenue was only Main Street from the harbour to 7th, then the name Westminster Road applied to what is now Kingsway. Source for all this among many is Peter MacDonald's Historical Atlas of Vancouver, don't have publ. data.Skookum1 (talk) 14:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Physical culture/obesity in demographics

I'm not sure that the obesity bit belongs in demograhpics, unless other diseases and physical habits are also included; maybe it should be in lifestyle or health, if there are such sections:

According to Statistics Canada, Vancouver is the least obese metropolitan area in Canada, with only 11.7% of the population obese.[

I think there are also stats on the number of fitness club memberships and associated retail outlets, bicycle usage, hiking and skiing as activities, child sports programs etc. "not being obess" all by itself is too stand-alone..."body-conscious" is definitely something to be mentioend, not sure how it can be cited, though of course more noticeable on the West Side than on the East Side but also a common theme in the whole Lower Mainland.Skookum1 (talk) 15:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I've removed this from the "Demographics" section as it is also contained in the "Sports and recreation" section. The latter is in a stubby subsection called "Fitness and health." I agree that it doesn't stand alone and should be added to. Sunray (talk) 19:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Vancouver featured article review - To do list

This list has been moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Vancouver/Operation_Schadenfreude#Things_to_do

The following areas have been identified as needing attention as part of the featured article review:

• Edit lead and reduce number of paragraphs  Done
• Ensure images are correctly sourced [1]  Done
• Fix dead links  Done
• Eliminate stubby paragraphs (one or two sentences)
• Fix links to disambiguation pages  Done
• Add citations (rm "citation needed tags)  Done
• Edit article
  • Quality of prose ( WP:WIAFA criterion 1a )
  • Readability
  • Article length (condense)

Several editors have been working on this, but, as you can see, there is lots more to do. Sunray (talk) 02:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Operation Schadenfreude has been created to overlook the revitalization of this WP:FAR. Please check there for an updated list of to-dos. Thank you, Mkdw^talk 06:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

FA status removed

Well, we were working on addressing the concerns raised in the review but despite that, Featured Article status was removed. I'm pretty disappointed with the process and intend to find out more about why the article was de-listed. Does anyone else care? Sunray (talk) 07:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I wish I had the time to devote to this and attempted earlier on to ask for a hold while we organized, but then things came up and I couldn't take it on. Even then it might have been too late and too many editors had already voted prior. Unfortunately the whole featured article process is more about democracy (even though it implicitly says it shouldn't). I was following your push with this article to get it back on track and thought you might pull it off. I too felt the issue was closed prematurely as you were correcting many of the complants. While I am unavailable to assist you, you may want to look up Selmo, Bobanny, Ckatz, and Alessa (the editor formerly known as AQu01rius, and Buchanan-Hermit who were pivotal editors in the original successful FAC in 2006. jbmurray is also another person that would strongly aid this process as he has incredible WP:FAC success with his numerous articles. Mkdw^talk 08:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I cannot find the article milestones section. My thoughts are that the article is just too long & does not capture reader interest - it is hard to tell major points from minor ones. I think creating more sub-articles for details could help shorten the article--JimWae (talk) 21:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I know a lot of city articles list what the city borders, but putting the borders in the 2nd sentence of the lede does not make me want to "keep reading". The places that border Vancouver are unlikely to generate interest in anyone who does not already know those place-names. Because those bordering place-names are unfamiliar to most people, it does not suggest that a "good read" will follow. Personally, I do not think they need to be in the lede at all, but at the very least they need to be further down in the lede--JimWae (talk) 08:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi JimWae, we've set up Operation Schadenfreude to organize our overhaul of the article. Mkdw^talk 19:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Visible minorities section

One user apparently prefers all the ethnicity links in this section to be to the main article, as in Chinese people, rather than to the X Ethnicity in Canada article, as in Chinese Canadians. It's obvious that these links should be to X Ethnicity in Canada articles, since the article is discussing people of various ethnicities in Canada, not those ethnicities in general. The information in those articles is more directly relevant to people in Canada, and therefore the subject of the Vancouver article. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Vancouver

		WikiProject Vancouver
		You have been invited to participate in Operation Schadenfreude to restore the article Vancouver back to featured article status.

- Mkdw^talk 12:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Stylistic conventions

• No Oxford commmas.
• Single-spaced sentences.
• Dates in the form 11 July 2009.

Nousernamesleft (talk) 00:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Operation Schadenfreude#Things to do. We agreed that for the numerical dates as found in accessdate we'd use YYYY-MM-DD and in the expanded, 01 January 2010 (as you said) as per ISO 8601. We greatly appreciate your help. If you have more, we're more or less using the Operation Schadenfreude page to organize this undertaking. Mkdw^talk 01:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Date Format

This edit on 2002-NOV-09 established MDY date format. Date format was inconsistent in current article. I have made date format of current article consistent, using MDY.--JimWae (talk) 01:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi JimWae. That edit was quite old. I reverted your edit as if possible are you able to use your tool to turn all the January 01, 2010 formats to 01 January 2010 as per Canadian date formatting? Mkdw^talk 01:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Wiki policy on date format is to use format by first edit that disambiguates the format. WP:Date#Retaining the existing format. There is nothing to indicate MDY is not Canadian. MDY is used by virtually every newspaper & flyer in Canada -- except for the ones that use YMD --JimWae (talk) 01:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that is the first case of it, but that person was not the first major contributor. Also, the rest of the article is using Canadian spelling (ex such as honour, favourite etc.), and bringing the rest of the article in line with that is something the WikiProject Vancouver would like to retain. The date format, MDY comes from our proximity to the United States, but official as recognized by the Canadian Standards Association, we use ISO 8601. This is also the format the Canadian Government uses on its official documentation such as a Canadian Passport and birth certificate. I does seem odd that the Canadian newspapers still use the American format, but in other areas like spelling they use the Canadian and British spellings. This variation and inconsistency is something we can make a choice here to align. Under Wikipedia:Date#Retaining_the_existing_format would we be able to claim 'strong national ties' to the use of date change? Mkdw^talk 01:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The article used MDY format through most of its life, not just in the early stages. There IS such a thing as Canadian spelling. There is no such thing as Canadian date format (except for ISO-style YYYY-MM-DD [sometimes YYYY-MMM-DD], which has been officially adopted on federal documents and websites). Canada has THREE date format in wide use & Canadian banks have recently insisted that all cheques specify the date format used. Also see this --JimWae (talk) 01:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC) - Also: the first person to insert a date [that contains a date format] is equivalent to "the first major contributor".--JimWae (talk) 01:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll leave it to you, though I would appreciate it if you gather consensus on this issue with the other long time editors of this article. Mkdw^talk 01:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia:Date#Retaining_the_existing_format pretty much covers it - unless an explicit consensus for change is established. The article does need to be consistent. Personally, I'd prefer YYYY-MMM-DD, but...--JimWae (talk) 02:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Personally I'd prefer if we use YYYY-MM-DD in the numerical and DD MMMM YYYY (01 January 2010) in the extended. User:Nousernamesleft generally stated the same above. I think it would be a nice touch to the article if it could. Aside from the fact it this was how the first full date was put in, to make the article read in the more Canadian recognized style and go with the British formatting. I did find it interesting that the DMY (01 January 2010) is becoming more and more common even in the United States. I think there are largest tasks at hand and I'd rather get back to the real focus of us converging on this article, and that is to get it to featured article status. The DMY is undoubtedly recognized as coming from the American influences Canada has, and even the fact that in Canada you may use all three shows the diversity we find in this country. However, I think the fact that it was like that before, is a snow argument that could be countered by consensus or even 'national ties' found in the same policy. Whatever is best for the article is really my preference. Thanks for taking the time to discuss this, Mkdw^talk 02:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

This is becoming an impediment to further progress. How about I make it consistently MDY following existing policy? Then, if a consensus develops to change to DMY, it is simple to change. All the accessdate=s are already YYYY-MM-DD --JimWae (talk) 02:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Just make it DMY for now... I'd prefer that as well, as it is more "Canadian" and more intuitive than the US style in my day-to-day experience. (As far as I can tell, your preference is based on the original edit rather than personal feelings, although if you do have a preference of the two please let us know.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I do have a preference - but we should not be battling over which personal preferences should be followed. There has to be a way to decide - and there is. Leave it as it first was (just like spelling varieties) unless there are strong national ties. There are no strong Canadian ties to DMY over any other dating format.--JimWae (talk) 09:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'd hardly classify this as a "battle". We're just discussing it, and if it leads to consensus for change, we change it. If not, we don't. Again, not a battle. --11:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

My point is that personal preferences should not be what we are discussing yet. I see someone has gone ahead & changed to DMY already while the discussion was ongoing. I think there is no publication that better represents Vancouver than the Vancouver Sun. I challenge anyone to find a single date in DMY format in that paper - I have searched even the obituaries and the classified section. My bank statements and bills (unless they use YMD) overwhelmingly use MDY. About the only time I see DMY is when I visit Victoria. The Toronto article also uses MDY, as do Montreal, Quebec, Ontario, Calgary, Ottawa, Canada, British Columbia, Victoria, British Columbia, and every other place article I have checked so far. When I see a predominance of DMY I know I am not in Vancouver. I mention this to demonstrate that it is a fiction that DMY is "Canadian". None of this is relevant to what format the article should currently be using -- the presumptive format, per wiki guidelines, is the one the article first got & has used for years.--JimWae (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Quite simply there's about 5 editors in favour of one way and only one against it. Considering the number of editors actively editing this article that is consensus. Do we need to have a public vote to convince you? Let's please not make this too difficult and keep on track. Mkdw^talk 21:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

You said you'd leave it up to me yet you are the one that is quick on the revert button, repeatedly returning the article to mixed format. Where is the discussion you mention? All I see is 2 against 1. --JimWae (talk) 21:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

If you would like to take this to a mediation committee I would be willing to participate. Otherwise I will continue to support consensus found here on this talk page and on the WikiProject. Mkdw^talk 21:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Please point me to where consensus was established --JimWae (talk) 21:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Here, as it appears the support leans in favour of DMY. Other than yourself, there's been no-one advocating MDY. --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

2 to 1 is all I see - that is not a consensus for change. Unless or until a consensus for change is established, we should be following wiki guidelines. Instead we have an article repeatedly reverted to mixed format. --JimWae (talk) 22:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

All I have seen here to support DMY - besides "I like it" - is the claim that MDY is American, and DMY is Canadian. I have provided numerous details to show that this is not supported by usage among Canadians in newspapers, nor even by articles on wikipedia. I can provide several more examples to demonstrate that MD is far more common in Canada than some editors seem to think. Consensus is more than 2 people against one, with unverified hints that editors with only 2 or 3 edits to the article also oppose the existing presumptive format.--JimWae (talk) 23:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Per the date conventions, Canadian articles on Wikipedia can use any one of three formats, based on what the editors wish to use. (Just because someone hasn't made a lot of edits here, their opinion shouldn't be discounted, BTW.) Technically, neither is legally Canadian though, and if we really wanted to be accurate, we should be using the ISO year-first system as that is the legal standard in Canada. --Ckatz^chat_spy 00:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Fuck You What I'm mostly concerned about is consistency of the date formats within the citations, and I'm happy with the current (YYYY-MM-DD) format for |date= and |accessdate= , DMY is fine for in-text dates. Now can we all stop bickering and just agree on a consistent format? This shouldn't be an issue guys come on, it's not a big deal. -- œ^™ 02:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it should not be a big deal - but when I made the date format consistent, based solely on wiki-guidelines, I was quickly reverted -- AND the format is STILL not consistent. --JimWae (talk) 02:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. And can we please move on now? Let's focus on concerns of more substance than date formatting. In general, focus on content and sourcing first, and then we can work on MOS and prose when the foundation of the article is stable and healthy. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It was not I who made an issue out of it. It was not a good idea to attempt to change the date format when trying to get people to work together to bring the article up to FA status. I will bring this change that contravenes wiki-guidelines -- without any attempt to get consensus -- up again later. --JimWae (talk) 07:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I would like to take this opportunity to remind you to assume faith as several editors had expressed that they support the change in the date format and your previous post seems rather threatening and nothing to do about improving the article but rather almost settling a score since we didn't agree with you. They have posted in what is now the largest section on this talk page and on the corresponding WikiProject page set up for bringing this featured article. The very policy you posted also states that the editors of Canadian articles are allowed to chose their own style for the article when it comes to date. How would you like us to gather consensus that will be acceptable to you? Mkdw^talk 08:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it is quite reasonable to think from your original replies that at the outset you were not aware of the policy guideline re changing date format. There was no attempt to gather consensus that anyone has pointed me to. There were statements made that misinformed (I do not mean intentionally) others about what ISO-8601 involved, that made it appear that DD MMMM YYYY has been officially adopted as part of ISO-8601. ISO-8601 can appropriately be called an official Canadian date format, but DD MMMM YYYY is neither official nor unofficial. I do not consider the matter settled, and I will return to it later. Are you suggesting that you would rather take it to mediation or carry on a vote while the push for FA is ongoing? Every relevant policy guideline states that once a style has been established, it be left alone (unless there are strong national ties -- but the only strong national ties in Canada are to YYYY-MM-DD). The policy guideline is there to avoid edit-wars and contentious discussions such as this.--JimWae (talk) 20:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Jim, it's a minor point, but we're discussing a guideline, not a policy. Policies have much stricter requirements as to how they are implemented, whereas guidelines have more "wiggle room" to reflect local consensus. --Ckatz^chat_spy 01:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

As long as the article is consistent, I don't see the problem with either format, and think going by what the earliest format used was is as arbitrary as just fixing everything to one now. That said, I agree with JimWae, I think the default in Canada is Month Day, Year. TastyCakes (talk) 01:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Citation checking

I started checking the cites from the bottom of the list and working up - from 100 on right now are fine, or have been updated. I'll keep working on this. At some point we should go through and use the cite templates for all of these - some of them are just bare refs. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Tony, thanks for your work. I added the FAC toolbox to #Vancouver featured article review - To do list so that editors can easily check for dab links, broken web links, and alt text. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tony, I've spent the better part of 3 days getting the references back on track. You can find a list of the progress here Mkdw^talk 05:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Well, I found several at the bottom end that were wonky, anyhow. =) Tony Fox (arf!) 06:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Map

I see the map in the infobox has been changed... It says the reason is per a discussion at WP:VANCOUVER, but I can't find any such discussion there. I have no real problem with the change and suspect it had something to do with making the boundaries more visible, except that the old GVRD maps were all listed together on commons and I'm not sure I like the new colour scheme (something just looks off). TastyCakes (talk) 22:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Vancouver/Operation_Schadenfreude. Mkdw complained that the colour scheme really didn't work. I have based for the most part my colour scheme off of my Highway route maps, like for this one for Highway 1.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 00:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah I see. Well I can't say I agree with his judgment of the colour choices on the old map (I made them after all ;)) but I do think that having white borders was a poor decision since it made it harder to read. As far as choosing colours that "go well together", if I were to choose them now I'd probably try ones from this site, I think there are some good combinations there, certainly better than I'd come up with just experimenting like I did when I made them the first time... TastyCakes (talk) 02:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry TastyCakes, I really didn't intend for it to sound that negative. Often I find in design and lighting that colours that often blend well together lose their aesthetic advantage in signage and cartography, simply because of their similar characteristics in their traits and tones work against the intended purpose. The eye often absorbs colours collectively differently than they would if the colour stood alone. For this reason, usually bold, and contrasting colours are used for cartography or signage, and I wanted to point out, the map was difficult to read like you said and took an extra moment to look at it rather than gathering all the required information from it at a glance. Cynthia A. Brewer has written some interesting books that speak on that more indepth. Mkdw^talk 02:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Sections to be shortened?

I'm reading through some of the sections that look like they could be pared down substantially, and thought I'd ask about them before I got out the editorial chainsaw.

• Entertainment and performing arts - there's a lot of discussion about music in here; does it make sense to shift the majority of that into the Music of Vancouver article and leave a general summary here?

• Media and libraries - this could be tightened up, as there's a daughter article there as well; would it be better for the mention of the library to go in the education section, perhaps? It needs sourcing, at any rate.

Those are just the two that have really caught my attention and that I can see needing some trimming. I think we could tighten up a lot of the other sections as well. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The entire Arts and culture section is a mess. I've created a Media section of its own and merged all its subsections into a more coherent set of paragraphs, though it still needs more work. The entertainment section is definitely too long and its direction/intent seems unclear as it jumps all over the place. I moved the 'Quality of Living' section in the hopes that it will be merged into this section or somewhere else as it definitely doesnt seen its own section. I was planning on writing up the part for the theatre groups as I'm involved in theatre myself, and I noticed some of the companies mentioned don't even exist anymore.Mkdw^talk 09:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not think the Quality of living section fits well under Arts and culture. Although it is mentioned in the lede, it is probably too short to stand as a section on its own. I think it fits better under Cityscape section -- the Urban Planning subsection of Cityscape especially deals with quite similar topics, and it was the Urban Planning that to a great degree has resulted in the high rankings--JimWae (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The quality of living section would probably fit into the Cityscape portion or perhaps under demographics. It's kind of a tough one to pin to one of the existing sections. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't sure where to put it. Just moved it out of there temporarily. That sounds good though, Mkdw^talk 00:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the right section to say this, but the "history" section claims that the residents of New Westminster *and Victoria* were disappointed with the decision of the Canadian Pacific to move their terminal to Vancouver. New Westminster, maybe. But I doubt anyone in Victoria expected the CPR to build a bridge or tunnel to Vancouver Island.

(I'd edit that, but the article seems to be closed to edits for a while). (OWC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.140.235 (talk) 07:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

On "livability"

Echoing my very first logged-in post ever [2], I'd like to once again point out that "most livable city" seems to be a bad case of quoting the headline, not the article. The EIU and Mercer surveys, when you actually delve into them, are surveys to determine quality for expatriate workers, not for the actual city residents. They are basically used to negotiate extra pay when you're sending someone off to work in another city, the EIU report used to be called the "Hardship Index". Factors such as availability of foreign-language education for children are included and I believe the assumption is that one would live in a desirable area such as the downtown or western peninsula. In particular, EIU doesn't appear to cover housing costs ("stability, healthcare, culture and environment, education, and infrastructure"[3]) and I'd be betting it's not talking about living on East Hastings.

The claim to "livability" is still in the lede, but now "Quality of living" has moved off on its own, this seems problematic since the balance has gone away now. Also, the Qol section claims that "clean air, water, and a panoramic view" earn the most-livable ranking, but this is not supported by the source. And if we're going to source The Economist in the Qol section, what about their article on gang crime? [4] (I can email it to whoever wants it)

These points may or may not affect re-FA'ing, but they should be addressed one year or another. :) Franamax (talk) 02:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Somewhere out there is a tourism-guide rating/ranking on "most overblown destinations" or some such, which panned Vancouver because of a lot of those same points, and also crowding, traffic, rudeness and how the postcards didn't give an idea of the feel on the street (and the rain, which Vancouver's own hype index likes to downplay as much as possible); sorry I can't remember; it was a major one like like Rough Planet or Conde Nast (to name two extremes); as in a post on Mkdw's page just now on the demographics section, too much of this page reads like travelogue and promotional brochure: "best this" and "most that" need some balance....East Hastings is the tonic for that e.g. "most notorious" and yeah, it's not just the Economist that covered the gang war, the LA Times ahd articles in it that I think outdid any coverage from within BC....Skookum1 (talk) 02:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

re: a desirable area such as the downtown or western peninsula, ain't it just so that these areas are the archetypal image of Vancouver-as-paradise; also noting that expats who'd read such reviews are from a higher economic strata than, say, the Nanaimo & Broadway area or Main etc; it's just that the tennis, beaches, mountains and hip lifestyle is very much a West Side/West End/Downtown thing (other than the Drive)....in the same way that British Columbia's image is largely Vancouver (and Victoria and Whistler), Vancouver's image is that of the West End, Kits/Point Grey and all those parks and beaches and views of the mountains; life on the East Side isn't in the image (the Downtown East Side even less so, except when the networks amp up their crime or poverty or drug-use coverage/airtime). Just thinking...are there parallel ratings on the city's position in national poverty indexes? Seems to me there must a a hype-balance aspect to POV...in this case all the p.r.-friendly material shouldn't be allowed to dominate, given what else goes on in Vancouver than tennis, sailing, skiing and eating out...Skookum1 (talk) 03:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Certainly if you wish to drive a car to and from work every day within the city itself or in from the 'burbs, livability would likely go drastically down the scale. Drastically. The rain, well that's a matter of perspective, for other Canadians at least - you don't have to shovel the rain off your driveway every morning. :) For me, the livability quotient (I live in Kits and I'm sure it's the most livable place on the planet so long as I don't want to actually buy a house) is the distribution of neighbourhoods and layout of good shopping streets and public transit, all within reasonable walking distance. I believe that walkability == livability, but I've never found good sources to support that. Rudeness - nope, never really seen that, or at least I have good contrasting examples from other cities.

I do agree there should be appropriate balance in the article, the city is not all cosmic light shining from above. Given the level of scrutiny that's coming up when 5000 journalists arrive, I think we'd be wise to cover it all in advance as best we can. Franamax (talk) 03:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The rating I mentioned wasn't about Vancouverites' perceptions, it was based on visitor response; maybe "rudeness" was something more like "attitude", I don't recall the specifics; traffic and rain were definitely in the "reasons why" for the "top ten most overrated destinatiions". It doesn't really amtter to people from Arizona or France that the rest of Canada is snowbound; such comparisons are a particularly Canadian POV, and also (ahem) smugly Vancouver POV. Yeah, you can't shovel it, but you can't make it go away by shaking shovels at the sky either, it just doesn't stop (in the eyes of visitors); some tourists from places like Brazil and Mexico actually COME for the rain and cool and to get out of the sun; it's a niche market. Sounds like you walk a lot; for people used to driving cards but from somewhere else the pecularities of Vancouver traffic, and teh density (or potential density) of its peak traffic is more than a bit crazy; as a Vancouverite your life can be walked to (i.e. if you live in Kits, or near the Drive or in the West End...can be quite different on the East Side, or for that matter big chunks of Dunbar or Kerrisdale far from cute their local commercial strips), but visitors see things from the viewopint of traffic and transit and such; they're not really aware of the suburban traffic grind either, unless they came up from teh border at the wrong time of day (LOL). Again, the point is not how Vancouverites see their city, or want it seen, or what excuses they come up for its shortcomings, it's how it is seen that reports like the one I've mentioned are about.Skookum1 (talk) 04:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I dislike mentioning this so publicly, and don't really have a good way of putting it. To start, I agree with what you're saying and this would be ideal if we could write the article balanced, summarized, and in a way that represents the city fairly (its good and bad points). This article will become featured status. That's the point of why we're converging on this article, at this time, with this number of editors (many from outside to WP:Vancouver), and to achieve that, we have to play some 'unique' rules of FA, and not necessarily all the good writing practices of a published article. That said, if you look at the other FA cities, you will find some very common similarities ex. Minneapolis. Almost all focus heavily on statistics (usually positive): the best this, the most this, ranked this, and mostly because readers find that interesting. You'll also find the articles in their own 'neutral' way (if you can call it that) skim over the negative points and usually point mainly to the sub article. The reason for this is that negative points of a city are usually controversial. This means not everyone sees it as the same (like the amount of rain) and if a point like that is added to the article, it means both sides demand representation, expand, and become larger than the point truly requires in the article. Points of controversy in city articles tend to negatively affect the process of FA because its seen as a point of conflict, and certainly no featured article survives while undergoing that. Eventually down the road I would like to bring this article into balance, but to get through this FA I think trying to bring the whole article will amount to a large portion of work needing to be done, and will attract unhelpful editors to the scene. The whole FA process is comparable to a popularity vote of people that aren't necessarily editors that are that familiar with FA, and don't really know how to see balance in a city article. If this article appears to be experiencing NPOV issues, edit wars, and a disruption, I worry that we will have opened a whole new can of worms. I think its important to take one thing on at a time, FA first, balance second. Like Franamax said, we're all quite busy. To push this aspect on the other editors that are unfamiliar to this city, while we bringing up this point, will not have the time to address it. In summary, if we do decide to go forward with balancing this article with some of the more negative points, finding a way to not compromise our FA nomination, ensure more statistical data over opinion pieces, and to dedicate the time to seeing it through than leaving it unfinished would be preferable. I would hate to see all the work done to this point be lost if the FA was unsuccessful over the decision to address this aspect of the article now rather than later. Mkdw^talk 20:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if we might want to consider combining all of these concerns into a section called "Standard of living" or something, that provides both sides of the equation - the livability index ratings, as well as the poverty ratings, etc. That might be a way to balance the two viewpoints and give it all some context? Tony Fox (arf!) 16:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Engaging "the rain debate" (or "rain denial", which is more accurate) was not my intent and wasn't meant to be the focus of the "most overrated destination" rating (actually it wasn'tthe top overrated destination, it was something more like 8th on the list) and rain was only one of the reasons for the rating. I realize the rain issue is a non-starter, especially when the insecurities of Vancouverites on the subject are necessarily going to cause an edit war (which to me smacks of WP:OWN) and we went through all this on the debate over the rainy/gray-day pic of the Stanley Park Seawall a while ago. The bloating of tourism/real-estate friendly ratings used to be in the lede, I see it's been moved out of the lede and is elsewhere in the article; it's always struck me as someone posting up "see, we have more proof of how great we are [despite the rain]". Vancouver, of course, is certainly not as rainy as other major cities like Salt Lake, Houston, Miami, L.A. and other such dreary, rain-sodden places, and tourists always see happy Vancouverites frolicking in the sun....Skookum1 (talk) 14:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I propose refreshing the "quality of living" section with newer statistics. The reference (ref 131 at time of writing this) that says Vancouver is second most expensive next to Toronto is dated 2006. E.g. since 2006 there has been a recession, Cape Town has become more expensive than most cities and London less so. I'm sure the facts have changed. Fjmarais (talk) 09:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I've reworded the lede bit about most-livable-city [5] but i haven't got it right. Mercer is not a "business magazine". What I'm trying to get at is that Mercer and EIU/Economist are both surveys aimed at selling country reports to willing customers, namely HR managers who have to negotiate pay deals with expatriate staff. I do recognize what the headlines say, but article-by-headline is not a good way to go. These rankings are not made for the city residents, they are for people who will be staying for a few years. As I've said many times before, it's a great city to live in and I love it - but claiming "most liveable" based on headlines and buzzwords, I think that should be mitigated somewhat. (pace to Mkdw, but I'd rather have a correct article than a Featured Article) And I'd love to see expansion of the Quality of living section. Franamax (talk) 05:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

More on the 'livability' topic... I was looking at the Vancouver#Urban planning section and saw that this sentence was tagged:

"Urban planning in Vancouver is characterized by high-rise residential and mixed-use development in urban centres, as an alternative to sprawl. This has been credited^{[by whom?]} in contributing to the city's high rankings in livability."

Trying to find a source to put in place of the ^{by whom?} I found one site that credits "unaffordable housing" (according to The Economist magazine's "Economic Intelligence Unit" survey), and another one that credits Vancouver's "tolerance and diversity - factors that attract the kind of people that generate economic development" (according to Richard Florida of Carnegie Mellon University). So basically both sources are crediting Vancouver's upper-class rich folk for the city's high rankings in livability rather than "Urban planning" being "characterized by high-rise residential and mixed-use development in urban centres" So I really don't know where the author was getting that information from.. or how I could replace that tag with a citation.. perhaps the last sentence with the tag should just be removed entirely? -- œ^™ 12:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Climate section re YVR

I know it's the official data for "Vancouver" but it's highly misleading; I've made a couple of changes to indicate that the figures given are for YVR, which isn't even in the city proper, and also qualified the claim about "fourth mildest" because the citation does not distinguish between Vancouver and parts of Greater Vancouver that are milder (namely Ladner/Tsawwassen and White Rock/South Surrey). As far as proper figures for the CITY of Vancouver, these should be found out and added to the article, even going so far as other tables than the YVR-only one currently shown; there's a weather station at UBC (in the Agricultural Research Station, SFAIK , and somewhere downtown there's another; it used to be in the coal Harbour area, attached to the piers/waterdrome....mabye it's on Canada Place now, somewhere around there; or HMCS Discovery. These figures are published somewhere, apparently not at the Environment Canada site though.....downtown gets 70" of rain at least, which is quite different from the 40-odd for YVR, and similarly there are different sunshine figures for downtown vs. YVR. Marpole and southern Kerrisdale/Southlands share similar figures to those at YVR; it's entirely misleading to represent those as indicative of the city, especially those parts of the city people are most likely to see/visit. Tourism Vancouver has been aware of the problem for years but is perfectly happy to stick with the more favourable YVR figures.....Skookum1 (talk) 05:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Somewhere out there, if not on the web then in publications like Historical Atlas of Vancouver (McDonald's book) are maps of isohyets and also temperature across the city.....also on a different subject, there must be cites for the amount of fog historically; the city doesn't get it like it used to, I remember when it would roll in for weeks and not budge; all different with the excess heat of the modern city and also climate change, though the fogbanks are still ofshore and can hit UBC and YVR....Skookum1 (talk) 05:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

You are correct and, in fact, I am the one that hilighted the climatic data as being specifically for Richmond (YVR). At one point, I added data for the harbour (downtown), but later felt is overkill and moved it to the more detailed Climate of Vancouver. I started to add other locations there to show the great variety throughout the area, although I haven't gone very far with that.- Koppenlady (talk) 19:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

By the way, Canada Place (downtown) gets about 1588mm (62") of rain and is generally milder in the winter.Koppenlady (talk) 19:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Geography

The geography section seems to have a lot of material that isn't about geography, namely stuff about plants. I hesitate to delete it outright, since some of it seems quite interesting, but shouldn't it be in a different section? Cityscape maybe? TastyCakes (talk) 15:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Montage-styled infobox image

I was wondering if we could have a montage-styled infobox image instead of just the Downtown skyline from False Creek. I have already made one, which is shown on the right. I added this onto the infobox awhile ago, but User:Skookum1 decided that there should be a discussion for this. Any comments? --[[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 04:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not supposed to be a travel guide (WikiTravel is), and images are supposed to be illustrative, not decorative or promotional. The previous image was just fine, though I do admit that the top image in the montage was of better quality/framing. And once a montage idea is accepted, why the focus on concrete futurism? i.e. and not a busy social/commercial street like Denman or Commercial or West Broadway or Granville...or for that matter East Hastings!! - or an archetypal residential street in Kits or Grandview? Or a building more illustrative of the city's history....yeah, OK, concrete futurism is the "new Vancouver", but it's ugly as hell and none of those images/building are remarkable enough or representative enough to warrant highlighting in that way (oooh, look at the flying saucer, how cool...oooh, look at the concrete diaphgragm where they opening ceremonies will be held; yes, it's a dominant feature of the city when being approached from the east, but you wouldn't illustrate the NYC article with Yankees Stadium). And an infobox image is not supposed to dominate the infobox, but only to introduce it; what your montage does is push all the rest of the infobox content down the page. It also has the effect of a postcard, which is not what the image space in the infobox is meant for. So it's not just taht your montage is too large, it's too cliche, and to me also too ugly, and not that representative of the city (except for those who find concrete futurism interesting).Skookum1 (talk) 15:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

If you take a look at the New York montage, you'll see not every single image focuses on towers or stadiums. I'd say replace at least one of them with the Lions Gate Bridge. And the Harbour Centre isn't the the best choice of Vancouver architecture, if you want to go old, go with the Hotel Vancouver, if you want new, go with either One Wall Centre or the Living Shangri-La. In my opinion, the Harbour Centre is quite ugly, even for an office building. I would say it goes right there with the Sears Building. I don't agree with Skookum that "Concrete" is the future of Vancouver when glass has been prominently used on most new towers. I would think Canada Place would be better choice than BC Place.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 18:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

"concrete futurism" is a style, the Sears/Harbour Centre is one example, BC Place another, the "old" MacBlo "waffle iron" on Georgia (just west of the Royal Centre) is another; so's Robson Square, though Erickson (who created and promoted the style) added in the kitschy space-frame stuff you also see in the Plaza of Nations and in the form of Science World (and the cover to the main concourse at SFU, which is also overwhelmingly concrete futurism). I think there's a picture in Wikipedia somewhere already that includes the VAG/old courthouse and the Hotel Van as seen from about Howe & Robson, that would be an "iconic" image, adn I'd have to agree that Canada Place is a much more identifiable symbol of the city (now) than BC Place is; some reflection of the city's Edwardian heritage hsould be there (e.g. the Dominion or Sun buildings); either that or an image of the Maple Tree Square area, of which there are a few; and I'd support a good image of Pender Street (the one on the Vancouver Chinatown page won't do; most buildings in it are of Gastown). Of the bridges I'd go for the Burrard Bridge.....it would be nice if someone could get a tower-top view of the West End looking towards Stanley Park, which would incorporate both that neighbourhood and the park; the view from Robson & Jervis might do...and yeah, Wall Centre of Living Shangri-La as far as "glass and steel futurism" goes. The wall of green glass that is the north flank of FAlse Creek is real boring looking; a better view would be one taken from QE Park/Little Mountain, which would show downtown set against the mountains, which is THE iconic image; another good spot is the crest of Knight Street, just above 37th....Skookum1 (talk) 00:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe instaed of Pender - the idea meant to be to represent the city's Chinese component - some part of Broadway/Commercial or Nanaimo/Hastings or Collingwood/Kingsway or ?? where there's a mix of languages/identities on store signs and who's on the street would be better....Skookum1 (talk) 00:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

IMO, Skookum1 is kind of going off topic here...no offense. Never knew there was a WikiTravel... I think the images of streets idea is creative, though readers wouldn't really want to look at pictures of streets. The montage I created was just an example of what it would look like. I really don't care what pictures are on, as long as it shows all or most of what Vancouver is made of. Would be nice if someone found out how the infobox montages came to place... At first I thought it was a neat idea to create one, but ehh... --[[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 08:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

How about a picture of a honking big pile of sulphur? That would convey a lot of information about the city too. [Kind of ;)ing but also kinda serious] As far as photo-montages in infobox images, I have respect for the people who spend time to make them, but they just seem like a way to turn four perfectly good images into one squinty squashy one. We should be using one image which well conveys the city and downtown/mountains does that job. I thought we used to have a better quality image of that same view though... Franamax (talk) 08:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's some links regarding "Montages" from Wikipedia talk:Image use policy archives. Hope this helps somewhat. -- œ^™ 09:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

What about this?Dolphin Jedi (talk) 00:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Vancouver Photo Montage.png

Might as well throw in my two cents since the picture has been changed... I'm not opposed to montages as a rule, but this one has some funny choices for pictures, particularly for a city with as many good angles as Vancouver. The Harbour Centre isn't a pretty building to start with, in my opinion, and it's not a particularly good angle of it. City Hall isn't really a looker either. And the picture of BC place is quite dreary. So the only picture in the montage that I really like is the one that was there to start with. Would it be ok if I reverted back to that for now? TastyCakes (talk) 15:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

yes please....but didn't I already do that? Oh, guess it was reinstated. I think on the Gastown p[age there is or was a view of the HC looking up Water St from Carrall/Alexander (i.e. in front of the Hotel Europe but it's still not a remarkable building...the Marine Building would be a much better choice even than the Hotel Van, but what would be good is the weird combination fo the Vancouver Block and the "giant toilet" of the Eaton's building (whatever it is now). A better view of downtown, IMO, would be one from about Jericho, also....Skookum1 (talk) 23:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I really like that monage of vancouver, although maybe some of the picture could be different but i stil like it. I support it. 174.7.14.105 (talk) 22:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't agree, and it seems like the majority of other people here don't agree either, so I reverted your change until we can reach some kind of agreement here. As I said above, I think montages can be quite good sometimes, but I don't think this is a very good montage in that it doesn't highlight the most interesting/pretty/descriptive things about Vancouver. If you want to take a stab at making another montage, I'd be happy to reconsider... TastyCakes (talk) 22:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying I think it's the best. As I said before I would prefer different images but I thought it was at least better than the original image but I will wait or some kind of aggrememnt. I think a compremise would be using the monatge but fist changuing some of the pictures. I would like to ask the person that originally made it to change the pictures. 174.7.14.105 (talk) 22:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding and being a team player. The existing montage was made by Lakers above, you can leave a message on his talk page here if you like, or he might return to this conversation. TastyCakes (talk) 22:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I already said that the one I created is (now) just an example of what a montage of Vancouve rwould look like. Better pictures could be used, though I'm not sure if everyone will want to have a consensus on having a montage on the infobox. --[[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 23:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

That's possible, and I can only speak for myself, but I'd have no problem with a montage being in the infobox if it was more like the ones at London and New York City. TastyCakes (talk) 23:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It looks like most people like the idea of a montage, they just wanted different pictures so I think you should make the montage with better pcitrues and present it to us and see what everyone thinks. 174.7.14.105 (talk) 23:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with 174.7.14.105 and TastyCakes. I think the montage would be really nice, but with better pictures.Nations United (talk) 06:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I like the montage but with the right selection of pictures. Mkdw^talk 02:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Added the montage to the infobox, but I wish someone could change the images in the montage.173.72.41.4 (talk) 21:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Vancouver or Hongcouver

Vancouver is also known as Hongcouver due to a very large chinese population and chinese gangs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.107.192.38 (talk) 07:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Vancouver's known as a lot of things, and that name is very old-hat and not in use anymore, as if it ever was; controversies abound as to its origin/intent but it's definitely not an acceptable name. An article titled Hongcouver was deleted long ago, not sure where that redirects now if it's a bluelink.Skookum1 (talk) 19:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Just finished reading Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HongCouver.. heh, can always count on Skookum and his verbose posts for some interesting reading ;P -- œ^™ 13:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I don't think in point form like is fashionable nowadays...and I wish I could find the National Geographic issue with the "Hongcouver" article title that outraged the Chinese business community, in which it was stated the term was coined by street kids as a brag about the takeover, i.e. it wasn't created as a derisive term, though it was labelled one (and actually made a lot of us uncomfortable). More derisive names are VanKong and it's true that "Hong" in Vancouver has been a derisive term for Chinese for a long time before "Hongcouver" started getting press. But it was never an "in use nickname", more a media catchphrase that people began to repeat. There is a mention of it on Chinatown, Vancouver but the redirect goes to this article because the whole city is/was meant, not just Chinatown as such....Skookum1 (talk) 15:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Hongcouver should probably redirect to Richmond. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It shouldn't matter whether you think Hongcouver is "old hat" or question it being "acceptable". It is a referenced nickname. It is not derogatory nor insulting, and I question someone's mental state that would find it offensive. Mixing a Vancouver's name with a Hong Kong's name to describe a large population of Chinese immigrants isn't at all insulting. I do however wonder if "Hollywood North" should be up there, as I have never heard anyone outiside BC mention Vancouver by that term. It may be more of a local bragging name more than anything. Plus I would consider Toronto more of "Hollywood north" due to it's large film industry as well as its international film festival which trumps Vancouver's. UrbanNerd (talk) 19:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Olympic watchlist

I've started a thread at the project talk page about creating a sub-page of priority article names to monitor (through Related changes) as the upcoming circus unfolds. We might not have any snow, but I'm sure we'll get lots of drahmaz for the next month. Comments are welcome, I hate talking to myself, we get in such bitter arguments. :) Franamax (talk) 23:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Famous

Thought you might like this: I went to the Olympic Opening Ceremony dress rehearsal today. In lieu of one of the 4-minute official speeches they had 4 minutes of a volunteer reading what I'm 99% certain was this Wikipedia article :) And yes, that is the only secret from the Opening Ceremony that I'm going to give away! Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 08:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Just goes to show you how deeply the producers researched huh? LOL. Which part of the article was it?Skookum1 (talk) 16:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The guy just started at the top and read until 4 minutes was up. Then in lieu of the next official speech another guy read from the Wikipedia article on Olympic rings for 4 minutes... Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Yup the stand-in for the VIPs just read whatever they felt like which were print offs of the Wikipedia page. Mkdw^talk 06:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Economy section

I reverted this edit by Po' Buster because I disagree wiyh the "rubbish" part of the edit summaru. So far as I know, it was a true statement and replacing with "exploded" looked like trading rubbish for rubbish (as it were, exploded is bad phrasing). Was it Li Ka-shing who developed the Expo 86 lands? And/or Richard Li? The influx of capital to Van in the '90's was significant from anyhting I can tell. The sentence indeed lacks sources and I'm not saying it's needed in the article. Just posting here in case anyone can easily source it. (I've {{fact}} tagged it) Franamax (talk) 03:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The sentence almost implies that Hong Kong immigrants are personally responsible for downtown development, which is 100% pure rubbish. Much of the financing came locally, and from Japan, India, Mainland China, Europe, Southern Ontario business, Oil country, etc, etc, etc. This sentence needs to be completely removed. Po' buster (talk) 04:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

And the "in part" description makes no sense at all. Sure it was financed "in part" by immigrants from Hong Kong. It was also financed "in part" by immigrants from Austrailia, "in part" by little Johnny from Abbotsford, "in part" from municipal grants, etc. Po' buster (talk) 14:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree with Po'buster on this; downtown development is driven just as much by American capital as by Hong Kong capital, and by home-grown capital too. This is reminiscent to me of the brag that "the west end resembles Hong Kong due to the city's high proportion of Chinese" or however it was worded, which appeared in this article a long time ago. Even Pacific Place (the Expo Lands aka the new areas of Yaletown) was not so much Chinese investment as a single land-deal by a Hong Kong company (Concord Pacific) which then parcelled out land to other developers and capital, rather than develop it themselves; and much of that was American capital, Toronto capital etc etc. The century-old ties to Hong Kong are part of the city's economic history anjd long predate the "influx", but it's not like Chinese investment is the only economic engine in BC; far from it - and similarly much of the corporate development, e.g. bank/office buildlings - is the result of Japanese investment ("in part") in BC's forest and other industries, or at least their role in, say, buying all our coal. Ethnic confabulation re teh city's economics is not somehting this article shoudl engage in; it's ultimately "original research" also....Skookum1 (talk) 15:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

There are notable periods of "ethnic investment", e.g. the heavy German investment frmo the city's founding through to World War I (read the chapter on the Germans in Strangers Entertained, BC Govt 1971, in most libraries), and American capital throughout the province's mining history (to which a lot of downtown development in all periods owes office developments downtown). And Franamax, note my just-previous comments about the Expo Lands...."money has no country" is very apt for Vancouver; Li-Ka Shing delegated his son Victor to oversee the hawking of the big plot of land he acquired from Grace McCarthy, but it wasn't "development", it was speculation; Concord Pacific didn't turn a single shovel of False Creek dirt, they simply sold off the land to others who DID develop the property/ies. Some of those were Hong Kong companies, some were from Alberta and Ontario...so unless you'd like to see an equal section/sentence on the ways in which Torontonian and Albertan capital changed Vancouver I suggest you drop the ethno-economic tub-thumping. And re the early city, Vancouver was very much a Montreal branch-plant (i.e because of CP)....so what's that? "Gaelic Quebecker investment"??Skookum1 (talk) 15:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

"the influx of capital", also, mostly came in the form of investment in jacked real estate prices in an overheated market caused by the same "influx of capital". It resulted in higher residential property prices (so much higher than downtown commercial space that the latter became an economically inviable use for the same square footage, resulting in flight of commercial operations to suburban locations in Burnaby and Surrey...). but mostly all that capital that "influxed" went directly into housing prices, which while they look good in "investment" terms did little to improve the city's infrastructure, rather they taxed it to the limit; another area where the "economic influx" played out was in the citizenships-in-exchange-for-investment system, the "investor immigrant" program, where in return for investing a half mil in some shaky business you got yourself a fast-laning of immigration procedures (funny, in the past we called that a head tax...)....which is why there's so many businesses that dont', well, have much business, just a storefront, and why otehr small businesses were sold way above market value/profitability....making economic life harder for other businesses faced with the new higher rents afforded by the "capital influx" whose businesses were secured only to secure citizenship, not with the intent of actually making money (though some have).Skookum1 (talk) 15:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Some buildings, also, in Concord Pacific/Expo Lands properties, and in False Creek South, were only marketed in Hong Kong and only in Chinese....so those, yes, were successes because of their ethnic targeting/exclusiveness.....pondering further the Wall Centre is definitely not Chinese/HK capital, the big building where Future Shop is on Granville was property owned by the Sultan of Brunei, who had let it lie fallow since Expo '86 though I'm not sure who it was he sold it to for development....what I'm getting at is it's a thorny story and not always the prettiest when it's considered that the capital in question is colonialist in anture and not so much interested in developing Vancouver but in lining its own pockets; if it meant that empty properties were left undeveloped for over a decade after they were purchased (or in the Expo Lands' case, pretty much given to them) is part of the story too....leaving big holes in the city for long periods of time.... The same is true of US-based Fortress Investment's role in teh Athletes Vilalge and in Whistler Blackcomb, or the Washington Group's buyout of various marine operations in BC....another angle on this is the ongoing business community/BC Liberal diatribe about how international money was avoiding BC during the NDP tenure in the '90s; the opposite is true, whether it was HK money or German or US money - they thrived during NDP years and have fallen off since Campbell came to power. And if you shop around who bought all those False Creek condos (the ones that weren't marketed exclusively to people who could read Chinese), you'd find an amazing number of second-home/investment buyers from Chicago, LA, Seattle, New York....Skookum1 (talk) 15:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Quality and cost of living section

The latest data shows that Vancouver is the most expensive city in Canada, surpassing Toronto. There are numerous data sources -- that I took the liberty of citing in my revised information that was laughingly deleted -- that point to this. In order to protect the data and informational integrity of Wikipedia, I feel this issue needs addressing. As of 2006 perhaps Toronto was marginally more expensive than Vancouver. This is no longer an accurate statement as of 2009-10. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.59.169 (talk) 00:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, if this is not addressed to Wikipedia's standards of data integrity and correctness I will change this section again -- using verifiable data to support this fact. The fact that Vancouver is the most expensive city in Canada is not a mere opinion or a theory, like so many of the other debates on here. There are numerous studies and verifiable facts that point to Vancouver as being the priciest city in Canada -- just look at the average price of real-estate as being one. This section needs revising and as I say; I will revise myself -- using correct and relevant data sources -- if no such revision takes place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.59.169 (talk) 00:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

What's your point? Are you wanting to use "the most expensive" as opposed to "among the most expensive"? Who cares and what a pointless goal to chase. And are you talking about data showing most-expensive for homeowners (where Van city itself will most likely win, except maybe Oakville down near the lakefront) or most-expensive for lower-income residents who rent, or what? It's difficult to discern since you've presented no diffs or sources and apparently you've chosen to laugh rather than achieve mutual agreement. Franamax (talk) 00:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, your source had nothing to do with 'the most expensive places to live' it had to do with real estate prices and mortgages. Secondly, I've found a source that supports the claim that Vancouver is now in fact down to the third most expensive city to live in a study that was actually testing that exact statistic. So please do us a favour and stop whining about it. Mkdw^talk 01:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me? Whining about it? You need to look at facts before you come out swinging as if you have been personally offended -- I merely said I wanted this section to reflect Wikipedia's standards for data integrity and credibility. Luckily for you, I am very familiar with the UBS study your interesting choice of third party data source refers to. You'll be happy to know that the study didn't analyze "most expensive" cities (the third party data source you have used, incorrectly assumes "expense" whereas the actual UBS study uses data to determine "purchasing power" of the average worker in a basket of global cities. Vancouver, for whatever reason, wasn't included in that study. In fact, and according to UBS' own data, of the two Canadian cities surveyed -- Montreal has the LOWEST purchasing power, presumably why the third party data source you have used refers to Montreal as Canada's most "expensive" city ... less purchasing power equals greater expense for the average person). So for that reason, I am removing that incorrect third-party data source's take on the initial UBS study. I recommend familiarizing yourself with the actual study to see for yourself. I can assure you, Montreal doesn't even come close to Vancouver's overall expense and even Toronto's (so not sure where you suppose, even based on that incorrect data source, that Vancouver is "third." The source doesn't even make mention of Vancouver because, as I say, Vancouver was not included in UBS' initial survey). The fact that Vancouver's real estate prices alone tower over both Toronto's and Montreal's is solid evidence -- in and of itself -- to suggest Vancouver is indeed a prohibitively expensive city for many not accustomed to such exorbitant prices. Here is one source from the Economist Intelligence Unit -- a very reputable publication -- suggesting that Vancouver is only four percentage points behind New York in terms of "overall" expense (http://www.citymayors.com/economics/expensive_cities_eiu.html). So I'm sorry if you personally felt offended, but perhaps Wikipedia isn't the right venue for you to be apart of if your feelings are that quickly wounded. I'm going to continue to be following these kinds of statistics and will make any and all necessary changes as per the data. For now, your choice of words is an acceptable compromise, although as I say, any reference to Montreal will be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.59.169 (talk) 08:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

You're excused? I just thought that you spent an unreasonable amount of time complaining about a single word when you seem to be a stickler for getting down the facts when your msn story only had to do with property pricing and completely didn't back the rest of the statement about most expensive city to live in. And now you're getting all upset over the word 'whining' and again written another epicly long thing that to be frank, I didn't get to the end with except the comment about Montreal. PS you can sign your name at the end of everything you write with tildes as its stated on the top of the edit box for years. Mkdw^talk 08:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Real estate prices, alone, are a huge indicator of "overall" expense. My "MSN" story was merely a factual rebuke of the third party data source you used that referred to Montreal as "Canada's most expensive city." Anyways, the current wording is of sufficient compromise. PS I'm new to Wikipedia editing admittedly and am not entirely sure on how to sign my name to things. Tomorrow I'm going to open an account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.59.169 (talk) 08:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm an economics major so I can assure you, I know these things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.59.169 (talk) 08:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

So to paraphrase then, "people are still trying to teach me things, therefore I'm an expert"? How refreshing. Franamax (talk) 09:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Coming here with comments like "laughingly deleted", delivering ultimatums such as "if this is not addressed... I will change this section again... I will revise myself... if no such revision takes place" and essentially declaring its your way or the highway are completely what Wikipedia is not about. I suggest you look into the whole wiki consensus before you come here to lecture us about the finer points of what exactly is Wikipedia's integrity, how this article is to read, and whether or not we belong here on Wikipedia -- especially considering that most of us watching this page have been here for years as early as 2005/2006. I also suggest you read WP:OR and learn from the Essjay controversy that your own knowledge about the matter of economics does not make your viewpoints any more valid or important as anyone else. Mkdw^talk 09:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Essjay is not a valid comparison, that was misrepresentation. Franamax (talk) 09:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Not sure why everyone is getting so wound up here... 66.183, what do you propose adding to the existing section? I think part of the problem is that you're not being specific about what you think should be changed. Is it just a matter of changing "Along with Toronto, Vancouver has also been ranked among Canada's most expensive cities in which to live." to "Vancouver has been ranked Canada's most expensive city to live in, and second [or third or whatever] most expensive in North America" ? If the sources support this, as you say, I'd have no problem with that. TastyCakes (talk) 15:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Did I say I was an "economics student?" NO! I said "economics major!" People aren't still trying to teach me anything. And I could have been editing Wikipedia for years too, doesn't mean a whole lot when facts are incorrect. If I was truly trying to impose my way, I wouldn't accept any wording other than my own. I have accepted the compromise and moved on for the time being. I suggest you do the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.59.169 (talk) 17:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Please calm down. Also I don't think you would have gotten very far trying to "impose [your] way" consider this is a free and open wiki project. Mkdw^talk 18:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to impose my way. I was merely advocating factual accuracy. Again, try not to act as though you have been personally offended. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.59.169 (talk) 19:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Rain

There is some debate over the wording of part of the opening paragraph to the section on climate, which currently reads:
The summer months are typically dry, often resulting in moderate drought conditions, usually in July and August. In contrast, most days during late fall and winter (November-March) are rainy.

A previous version reads:
The summer months are typically dry, often resulting in moderate drought conditions, usually in July and August. In contrast, the rest of the year is rainy, especially between October and March.

The current version underplays the fact that the entire year, outside of summer, is rainy- not just "late fall and winter (November-March)". Three inches and more of rain in every month from October to May is rainy by any standard. The number of days of rain in every month from October to May is rainy by any standard. Late fall and winter (November-March) are especially rainy, not just rainy. I'm not suggesting the standard for comparisons are extremes, such as say dry Los Angeles and wet Prince Rupert; but if one looks at most cities within the Oceanic climate regime, Vancouver is rainy every season apart from summer.

It's not an editor's role to interpret the data on the charts in a manner that reflects well on the city. Let a reader draw his or her own conclusions and let's state clear, objective facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.157.226.132 (talk) 22:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. As you note, the previous description talked about the moderate drought in July and August and then said: "In contrast, the rest of the year is rainy." Is this accurate? You say that a month with three inches or more should be described as rainy. What sources are you basing that on? Without sources, it seems to me to be original research.

The Atlas of Canada states: "October also marks the transition to the rainy season on the southern portion of British Columbia’s west coast."[6] So what is a good indicator? A day with no rain can hardly be described as "rainy." If you look at the table in the section it shows the that the months with rain on more than half of the days (i.e., 15 or more) are November to March. From April to October, there is rain on less than 15 days a month. It seems to me that the current description best reflects the table. Sunray (talk) 06:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, but you're not reading the previous statement properly. It states the summer months are dry (moderate drought conditions in July and August- that is not all summer). In contrast to the summer months (June 21- September 21), the rest of the year is rainy. "The rest of the year" is not a day by day analysis, which is what you seem to prefer, but a general statement worthy of an opening remark. Yes, of course October is (usually) the transition- this is exactly what the previous statement says- since it's the first non-summer month. And yes, there are dry spells here and there during the rainy months. Finally. please don't start asking for "sources"- I could find hundreds I'm sure, but is that necesaary for a general statement? Do we need a source when we say Vancouver is located in B.C. or the sky is blue? Let's not create a biased tourist brochure here, there are plenty elsewhere. We can say whatever we want, it's not going to make Vancouver any less rainy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.157.226.132 (talk) 17:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

You say that I am not reading the sentence properly. I don't see that. The sentence currently states:

"The summer months are typically dry, often resulting in moderate drought conditions, usually in July and August. In contrast, most days during late fall and winter (November-March) are rainy (see "Climate Data," table below)."

While Vancouver is popularly thought of as being "rainy," it actually has only 166 days on average per year with measurable precipitation. As noted in the statement only during the months of November to March do more than half of the days have rain. You state that apart from June to September, "the rest of the year is rainy." I am challenging that. According to the policy on verifiability: "Any material challenged or likely to be challenged... must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." This is an encyclopedia and, as such, must rely on sources to provide objectivity. I am using the table as my source. Again, unless you produce reliable sources, it is original research. Sunray (talk) 06:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I can see I'm not going to win an argument with a seasoned Wiki editor, capable of pointing to Wiki "policies" I have no time or patience for. Nonetheless, your statement is YOUR interpretation of the table and is also open to challenge. Again, I emphasise that the concept of "rainy" is not about the number of days in month, and your criteria of "more than half" is arbitrary (10 days out of 30 is plenty to me). It's simple: Vancouver has a dry (drier) season (June to September) and a rainy season (the rest of the year, although the late fall and winter are VERY rainy). I don't really care what is said, my motivation was a knee-jerk reaction to the suggestions I see that Vancouver is "not really that rainy" and your statement that "only 166 days" is case in point. "Only" 166 days! That's less than 50% therefore Vancouver is not rainy [sarcasm, of course]. Look, I can understand residents' pride in their city (and that is a great thing), but the manipulation of facts for a better public perception is not encyclopedic or fair. 'Nough said. I'm gone. Bye.--75.157.226.132 (talk) 18:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

lotusland

In the infobox, we have Hollywood North listed as a nickname. I would like to include Lotus Land as a second nickname. It is in common usage across Canada, and would take the burden off the somewhat diminutive Hollywood North. Its origins are ascribed to Allan Fotheringham, former Vancouver Sun writer and pundit. What does everyone think? [7] Theinterior (talk) 02:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that "Lotus Land" has been used as a nickname for Vancouver since Hutchinson first used it in the 1960s. Two questions: 1) How common is it? and, 2) Isn't Hollywood also referred to as "Lotusland"? I'm not sure how far back that goes (or whether it makes a difference). Sunray (talk) 06:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I've lived here my whole life and never heard of that term in reference to Vancouver. I have, however, heard it be used in relationship to places in California. Not entirely sure about Hollywood, and the article Lotusland was not much help. Comparatively in a google test "Hollywood North Vancouver" has considerably more notable and more hit results than "Lotus Land Vancouver" and "Lotusland Vancouver". ""lotusland Santa Barbara" had by far the most number of hit results. Lotus Land in relation to Vancouver seems to be in usage in blogs and various newsprint publications, tourism websites, urban dictionary, and a tattoo parlor, whereas Hollywood North in relationship to Vancouver has been the subject to books, films, businesses, media releases from city hall, and businesses. I would say that the primary topic of the nickname is by far Hollywood North. Mkdw^talk 08:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I clearly remember it as early as the 1970s --JimWae (talk) 08:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I definitely remember this being used in conjunction with Vancouver and/or British Columbia, going way back. Here are some recent articles that use the term to refer specifically to Vancouver:

• Vertical Cities: How cities grow – up is in (Globe and Mail, 17 May 2010)
• If accountants are happy, then you should be too (The Province, 17 May 2010)
• Cool Britannia? (Op-ed piece from The Edmonton Journal reprinted in the Calgary Herald, 26 May 2010)
• The spring of our collective redemption (Windsor Star, 29 May 2010)

--Ckatz^chat_spy 08:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I also remember the term going way back. I'm not certain, but it may apply to BC in general and not specifically Vancouver. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.157.226.132 (talk) 17:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Mkdw, I am proposing lotusland as a second nickname after Holly North, which I agree is definitely in use and common. IP brings up a valid point in that Lotusland often refers to the whole lower mainland and perhaps the island as well. I'll wait for more consensus before adding anything. Did you notice the redirect at the top of Lotusland? Theinterior (talk) 17:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey Sunray, who is Hutchinson? Theinterior (talk) 17:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

That would be Bruce Hutchison, referred to, along with Allan Fotheringham, in the quote you provided, above. Sunray (talk) 06:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It definitely sounds like Lotusland does have merit and I certainly won't block the majority consensus, nor am suggesting it doesn't belong. My comment was simply my perspective, granted I'm from a younger generation than many of these editors, and did a little research on my own and came here with the results. Also, I did not notice the redirect, but I see that Ckatz just added it today. Mkdw^talk 22:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, just thinking about it a bit I realized that consensus on a nickname is extremely hard thing to figure out. I mentioned lotusland to some co-workers, and they came up blank, and again to some friends, who said it was common knowledge. I'll stew on it a bit, ascribing a nickname to entire city is a pretty big move. I'll wait for a few more people to weigh in. It does seem to be popular with journalists, though. Whoops on the redirect, forgot how fast things can happen here. Theinterior (talk) 23:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think "Lotus Land" is commonly used these days to refer to Vancouver. Allan Fotheringham used the term somewhat sardonically (along with "the wet coast," "British California," and so forth), in his columns. Sunray (talk) 06:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

FYI, the articles I listed above, which reference the use of "Lotusland" for Vancouver, are all from May 2010. --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I see that the articles you posted are recent. I suppose that if the media are using the term, it is likely to become more common. I just note that some of the comments above indicate that some people are not familiar with it. Also, the media tend to use the term somewhat sarcastically. Sunray (talk) 07:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that a nickname can withstand even if some people have not heard of it. It appears that this name is the brainchild of the media, and I do however believe that for it to be labeled it should have some sort of broader influence. I can think of at least a dozen other nicknames I see in the newspaper that journalists use to describe Vancouver on a somewhat regular basis, but would not say they are representative of the general public's nickname for the city: Vansterdam (Globe and Mail), City of Glass(Georgia Strait), Hongcouver (Vancouver Sun), and Terminal City (Globe and Mail) to name a few. Each have numerous references despite even a few having an distasteful nature. Mkdw^talk 19:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Those examples aren't really the same thing... "City of Glass" was the title of a Douglas Coupland book, "Hongcouver" was a derogatory term in reference to Asian immigration, and Terminal City is actually even older than Lotusland, if I recall correctly. Lotusland has been around for a while, and it's not just a media thing. --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

And how is Lotusland different than my examples? Your reason for Terminal City was that its even older than Lotusland...? That doesn't make it all that different in my opinion. A nickname is not dictated by its origins or whether it has positive or negative connotations. Whether the name originated from a book title, journalist, or immigration influx, does not change the fact that some of those names, certainly Hongcouver, are more well known, and more commonly used than Lotusland. In fact, controversy arose recently when Arnold Schwarzenegger used the term to describe Vancouver. My point was that Vancouver has a lot of these quasi nicknames over the decades and if we're serious about adding Lotusland then we should be looking at these other ones equally. This should also affect our decision on how to go about it. Personally I'm for adding these nicknames, or what I thought might be an alternative suggestion would be to write a section below about them. Mkdw^talk 01:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Vancouver is a young city, perhaps just on the cusp of being mature enough to have some good well-used nicknames, but not quite. I looked through the archives of this talk page and found that at one point, many of this nicknames we've discussed (plus many dubious ones) have been added and deleted. I can see a problem arising like Winnipeg's, where you have a more inclusionist list that ends up with stuff like "Slurpee Capital of the World". Houston has a nice little link to an informative nickname article, as does Chicago. Australian cities like Sydney and Melbourne avoid nicknames completely. What about another article? It still involves choosing an "official" nickname as a base to link the article from though. But back to the first debate, we have to watch out for Hongcouver. I definitely have experienced it to have xenophobic/anti-asian connotations. It is probably used more than lotusland, but not in polite company and I don't think by Asian Canadians at all. The reasons I put forward Lotusland were A) its use by Vancouverites - Georgia Straight search Vancouver Sun search B) its use by other canadians describing vancouver (see above ckatz) and C) it capturing a certain essence of vancouver. Perhaps C) is too subjective. Do other nicknames meet this criteria? Yes. To the same extent? I would say no, but this is a very inexact subject. I feel if we are only going to feature one nickname, it has to be the worldwide definitive nickname that doesn't exist yet. It seems to me we have a pool of up-and-coming nn that haven't totally caught on. Hollywood North and, in my opinion Lotusland, are two that have spread into general use. But we do potentially open the floodgates, like poor Toronto. Toronto the Good? OMG. Theinterior (talk) 03:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)